ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú

These guidelines are suggestions and elaborations only. For more information consult the relevant sections of MUPIM, the Provost’s Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure, and your department's governance document.

1. Look at the timeline posted on the Provost'[s website to know what has to be done and when. It's never too early to start planning.
2. The candidate and chair will come up with a list of ten potential external reviewers. They should not be friends, co-authors, dissertation committee members, or others who know you very well. Include a brief statement about your relationship with the individual—for example "I co-chaired a session at a professional meeting with this colleague". It is not unusual to be professionally acquainted with potential reviewers, and knowledge about the relationship can help identify the best possible reviewers for your case. Don't keep anyone on the list who is borderline too close and expect to "hold them as last resort" — very often we go to #10 on the list. Write a paragraph about each potential reviewer that includes academic appointment and rank, credentials, especially publications record (titles and presses of major books, number of articles, grants, where relevant). The chair sends the full list to CAS for approval. There is often some discussion between the dean's office and the department regarding the names.
3. A potential reviewer must hold the rank that a person would achieve after promotion. For those applying for tenure and promotion to associate professor, while it is acceptable to have an external reviewer at the associate level, we recommend you limit the number of associate reviewers. Where you have a very strong associate professor as reviewer with expertise that overlaps well with the candidate, it is reasonable to use such a person. However, in our experience reviews from full professors generally carry more weight. For those going up for promotion to full professor it is ok for one of your external reviewers to be a repeat from your previous promotion, but in general the reviewers should be new. It is ok to include individuals from your earlier list who were not selected.  Reviewers in research positions that are non-University organizations are acceptable, but again you probably would not want more than one person in that category as an actual reviewer.
4. Once the list has been approved, four names are selected in this order, per CAS Manual of Operations: 1. Dean's representative 2. Dept chair 3. Dept. P&T committee 4. Candidate. If any of them decline, the individual or group that chose them picks again. Reviewers need to be chosen in May and review packets should go out by the middle of June. Some chairs, concerned about getting the needed four letters, have solicited more external reviewers as a back-up plan. All letters received must be included in the packet, and CAS and University reviewers do ask why a candidate has additional reviews. We recommend phone conversations and verbal commitments from reviewers, rather than the extra solicitation model. In some cases chairs might receive a letter in which the reviewer identifies information that could compromise the integrity of the letter, such as a statement about a personal friendship with the candidate. This situation, or indeed any problematic letter, should be called to the attention of CAS immediately and may result in an additional letter being solicited.
5. For promotion to Professor, the candidate should demonstrate excellence in teaching and scholarship, and strength in service. (For regional campus faculty the order of scholarship and service may be reversed.) One question we often get from those considering promotion to Professor is: How Much Scholarship Is Enough? MUPIM is brief and says that the cumulative record is considered when determining if someone has an established record in the discipline.  In actuality, in the CAS and on the University P & T committee, the reviewers are most interested in the accomplishments of the candidate after their last promotion. While the entire body of work is taken into consideration, the emphasis is clearly on the accomplishments after tenure with the general expectation that the candidate will have produced a body of work that at least meets, but preferably exceeds the production that was expected prior to tenure. Exactly how that is defined will vary by department.
   Associate professors considering promotion are strongly encouraged to request a formative review from their department's promotion committee, as described in MUPIM.
6. Materials sent to reviewers will vary by discipline and by level (promotion and tenure vs. promotion). For promotion to Professor, MUPIM states that promotion is based on the candidate's "cumulative record" of contributions to the field. Instructions to reviewers ask for emphasis on the "recent" work, that is, work done since tenure (and not included in the tenure dossier). Materials sent to reviewers should include at least the most important of the scholarly or creative work done since tenure, and possibly all of that work. They may also include key items from the pre-tenure period though this should not be the focus of the case.
7. The candidate will assemble the final P&T dossier in June and July. This is an arduous task, similar in scope to writing an article, but it is critical. A good dossier makes the process much easier and therefore much better for the candidate. The opening narrative describing your teaching/research/service philosophy is important and sets the stage for the review. Candidates should have their dossier carefully reviewed by colleagues. Associate deans are also available to review drafts. In general, avoid disciplinary jargon as most committee members will not be familiar with your field.
8. A few specific tips about the dossier—
   Teaching—(for candidates at both levels) Materials must provide evidence of teaching effectiveness including student evaluations and data from at least one alternative evaluation tool such as SGIDs, SALG data, peer reviews, or teaching portfolios. Ideally, one such alternative evaluation should be done at least every two years, but at the very least there should be two of these in the file, completed since the last promotion. At least one of these should be something other than a peer review (SGID, SALG etc). Student evaluations need to be presented comprehensively in tables and include the number of students in the class, the number of respondents and departmental means, where appropriate. The evaluation results should include the six University questions and the five CAS questions (listed below); other questions may be included, space permitting. All courses taught since the last promotion should be included. Candidates should also document reflection on all forms of assessment of their teaching. Do not present direct quotes from students. It is as important for the candidates to reflect on their teaching assessments as it is to report the assessments. Reflection should include specific examples of how the individual changed their approach to teaching as a result of feedback, or explanations of unique features of classes that might bias student evaluations.  (for chairs) Chairs should place student evaluations in the departmental context, particularly for similar courses. Chairs who systematically review student comments may include a representative example from the comments.
   Research or Creative Activity — The research section should include the quality of the journals (impact factors, where available, acceptance rates) and the candidate's role in the publication, e.g. percentage contribution. If there are co-authored works, explain the order of authors that is typical of your discipline—e.g. is the first author always primary? Note articles published with student authors.
   Papers and books that have been accepted for publication should be included, but not book contracts. Accepted grants and those that have been submitted should be included, along with grant scores and funding rates. Publications documented to be under review may be included in your dossier, and in the materials sent to reviewers. However, only those works accepted for publication by the time of the CAS personnel committee meeting will be considered by that committee.
   The dossier should clearly delineate scholarship that has been completed during the candidate's time at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. Candidates who have taken years of credit should count scholarship completed during the credit years as well. Candidates for promotion to full professor should clearly distinguish publications that appeared subsequent to tenure from those that were part of the tenure package.
   Service — This section should carefully describe the nature of the service and its impact on the University, the profession and the community. Some contextual explanation of professional service is often helpful.
9. (For chairs) The chair and the department promotion and tenure committee review the dossier and supporting materials, including the external letters. Once a determination has been made, the chair and department reviews are forwarded to CAS. Some departments have two letters, some have one. The chair's letter should not be a line by line review of the dossier. We have had 6-7 page chair letters that "summarize" a 20 page dossier, which does not help the review process. The chair's job is to place the candidate's materials in the context of the department and discipline and make a recommendation. How should these evaluation scores be understood for your department? How are the journals? How are edited books viewed in your discipline? The chair should not ignore issues of concern, such as if one of the external letters raises an issue. In such an instance the chair should explain the issue and discuss whether they agree or disagree with the reviewer. The chair's letter is not a letter of advocacy. It is a professional letter of review that can appropriately conclude with a recommendation. It should, however, be as objective as possible. A measured, balanced assessment is more convincing than a blanket rave. The chair and committee letters should make sure to use the MUPIM language (such as "excellence," "strength,") precisely, as any deviation sends an unclear message.
10. The dossier, external letters and the chair and any committee letter(s) are forwarded to the CAS P&T committee. The committee consists of six senior faculty members and is chaired by an Associate Dean. The committee meets in October and makes a recommendation to the Dean.  The Dean's decision is communicated to the candidate by the beginning of November and there is a 10-day period included to allow for an appeal in the case of a negative decision. By December 1, the Dean's recommendations are forwarded to the all-University committee for a decision by the end of January. Important new material (such as major publication acceptance) may be added to the dossier up to the point where the Dean's recommendation is made, in mid-November. Cases are then considered by the University P&T committee. Positive recommendations are then forwarded to the Board of Trustees for consideration at their February meeting.

Note re: Point 8: To assist in identifying them on the teaching evaluation reports, below are the CAS and University questions.

CAS Questions

1. The course was well organized.
2. The instructor presents content clearly and understandably.
3. The graded work fairly tests the course content.
4. The course was intellectually challenging.
5. Upon reflection, this instructor is an effective teacher.

University Questions

1. My instructor welcomed students' questions.
2. My instructor offered opportunities for active participation to understand course content.
3. My instructor demonstrated concern for student learning.
4. In this course I learned to analyze complex problems or think about complex issues.
5. My appreciation for this topic has increased as a result of this course.
6. I have gained an understanding of this material.

Revised 2/2019

These guidelines are suggestions and elaborations only.  For more information consult the relevant sections of MUPIM, the Provost's Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure, and your department's governance document.

1. Look at the timeline posted on the Provost's website to familiarize yourself with the process. It's never too early to start planning.
2. In the spring of the year that you will apply (typically your 5th year at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú), you will compile a list of ten potential external reviewers. They should not be friends, co-authors, dissertation committee members, or others who know you very well. This list will be vetted by your department and the dean's office; it is common to change some names. Reviewers are asked to review your scholarship only. In the summer, you will prepare your dossier. Plan to spend a good amount of time on it.
   The department will vote on the case in September. Once this is done, the dossier, four external letters, and the chair's and any committee letter(s) are forwarded to the CAS Personnel (P&T) committee by about October 1. The committee consists of six full professors, two from each cognate area, and is chaired by an Associate Dean. The committee meets in October and makes a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean's decision is communicated to the candidate by the end of November and there is a 10-day period included to allow for an appeal in the case of a negative decision. By December 1, the Dean's recommendations are forwarded to the all-University committee for a decision by the end of January. Important new material (such as major publication acceptance) may be added to the dossier up to the point where the Dean’s recommendations go to the University in early December. Positive recommendations are forwarded to the Board of Trustees at their February meeting.
3. Building a Strong Teaching Record — You will need to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness, including student evaluations and data from alternative evaluation tools such as SGIDs, SALG data, peer reviews, or teaching portfolios. Ideally, one such alternative evaluation should be done every year, but at the very least there should be three of these in the file, completed at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. Student evaluations need to be presented comprehensively in a table and include the number of students in the class, the number of respondents and departmental means, where appropriate. The evaluation results should include the six University questions and the five CAS questions (see below); other questions may be included, space permitting. All courses taught should be included. Candidates should also document reflection on all forms of assessment of their teaching. Do not present direct quotes from students. It is as important for the candidates to reflect on their teaching assessments as it is to report the assessments.  Reflection should include specific examples of how the individual changed their approach to teaching as a result of evaluations, or explanations of unique features of classes that might bias student evaluations. Chairs will place student evaluations in the departmental context, particularly for similar courses. Chairs who systematically review student comments may include a representative example from the comments. Work with your department to be sure you are getting an appropriate variety of teaching assignments, given the constraints of your program's needs. Work with students on research projects or independent studies, as opportunities arise.
4. Building a strong research record —  For promotion and tenure, MUPIM states that candidates must demonstrate "research, scholarly and/or creative achievement of high quality and its prospective continuation." Think carefully about the venues of your publications. A big article in a top journal in your field is worth a lot, possibly more than two publications in lesser venues. In the dossier, you will give indicators of the quality of the journals (impact factors, where available, acceptance rates) and describe your role in the publication if it is co-authored, e.g. percentage contribution and order of authors that is typical of your discipline. Student co-authors are valuable and should be noted. Papers and books that have appeared, and that have been accepted for publication will be included in your file that goes to reviewers. Book contracts will not. Accepted grants and those that have been submitted will be included, along with grant scores and funding rates. Publications documented to be under review may be included in your dossier, and in the materials sent to reviewers. However, only those works accepted for publication by the time of the CAS personnel committee meeting will be considered by that committee.
5. Building a strong service record — For university service, aim to build a record of quality service in a variety of places appropriate to your interests. For professional service, you should build a record of consistent service in such areas as book reviewing, manuscript or grant reviews, conference planning, consulting, or other work for professional organizations. While you should avoid taking on excessive responsibilities if these will detract from your scholarship, professional service demonstrates your presence in your field and gives you valuable exposure.
6. At the time of hire, some assistant professors are granted one or two "years of credit" toward promotion and tenure. This may reflect time at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú (teaching in another role) or time at another institution. In either case, the scholarship that was published during the credit years is included in the candidate's dossier and is counted toward promotion and tenure. That work should be clearly identified in the dossier, and separated from earlier and later work. For the teaching and institutional service record, credit years function differently depending on where the work was done. Someone who taught at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú, for example as a VAP or Teaching/Clinical Professor, should include teaching evaluations and any institutional service for the credit years, but not for any earlier years. Teaching at another institution, however, is not included in the dossier.

2/2019

Promotion and Tenure Application Timeline

TCPL Faculty Promotion Timeline

Learn more about the process

Learn more about the Program

1. Submit Advancement’s e-newsletter communications form:  This will get you on their calendar. If you are uncertain of any of the fields, enter “see Jason Barone” or “TBD.”
2. Send your content (text and images) via a Word or Google doc to Jason Barone and indicate your requested send date. Include photo captions. Photo headshots of key people named in the newsletter, if available, are also helpful.
3. Jason will send you previews in Emma. Provide feedback until the newsletter is approved so he can send the final code to Advancement.

The vision statement of the National Numeracy Network is that we achieve "a society in which all citizens possess the power and habit of mind to search out quantitative information, critique it, reflect upon it and apply it in their public, personal and professional lives." Accordingly, the ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University quantitative literacy competency promotes the abilities to interpret, reason with, make sound practical decisions based on, and effectively communicate numerical information.

Criteria

Courses seeking a QL designation must:

1. Include at least 3 QL student learning outcomes (SLOs) from the following list of 6. These QL SLOs are based on Bloom's Taxonomy and each link to one or more of the Lumina Foundation's outcomes.
   
   Group A (Knowledge & Comprehension)
   • SLO 1: Identify the quantitative aspects of a problem or situation
   • SLO 2: Interpret numerical displays and information
   
   Group B (Application & Analysis)
   • SLO 3: Apply quantitative methods to a different situation
   • SLO 4: Analyze, compare and/or contrast components of numerical information
   
   Group C (Synthesis & Evaluation)
   • SLO 5: Communicate or create an idea with numeric information using multiple forms of representation
     (words, graphs, tables and other displays)
   • SLO 6: Evaluate, assess, or critique different forms of numerical evidence
2. Include graded QL assignments and activities at multiple points, distributed over the course of the semester.
3. Include graded assignments requiring students to translate a QL skill to a practical application or to solve a problem.

Guidance

1. The QL SLOs above are deliberately phrased broadly so that they can (1) be modified to fit the goals and content of a variety of courses across cognate areas and (2) be implemented via myriad techniques and assignments.
   
   For instance, consider the SLO "evaluate, assess, or critique different forms of numerical evidence." A professor might phrase this SLO for a proposed class as, "Students should be able to critically assess whether a journalist drew appropriate conclusions in a newspaper article that involved quantitative information." Another example might be, "Students should be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different statistical procedures (e.g., correlational versus experimental procedures)."
2. Though not every SLO need involve QL, at least one-third of all SLOs in the course should be QL SLOs (e.g., if a course has 9 SLOs, at least 3 should involve QL). Accordingly, at least one-third of the course activities should involve the pursuit of QL SLOs.
3. A quantitatively literate person not only understands broad quantitative principles and methods but can use them across contexts to solve problems, answer questions or address practical applications. Therefore, a QL course should include graded assignments asking students to use QL skills for these purposes. See below for some examples of problems that require QL skills to answer. Many other examples are possible. Consider how your course will contribute to your students' quantitative literacy development.

How To Propose a QL Course

For those proposing newly created courses:

1. All new courses in the College (whether seeking QL status or not) require approval from the CAS curriculum committee. So, first, complete their new course approval form.
   
   Item 5 on this form requests SLOs. Be sure at least three of these SLOs involve QL and that at least one-third of your total SLOs are QL-related.
2. Attach to the new course approval form a separate document with the following information:
   1. The QL SLOs on the first page are ordered from those requiring the least degree of cognitive complexity to those requiring the most. That is, the higher-numbered SLOs involve greater cognitive sophistication. Identify the highest-numbered SLO included in your course. Then, provide either a course assignment or a description of a course assignment that facilitates this QL SLO. Please limit this response to 2 pages.
   2. Provide an estimation of the percentage of the course that will be spent in the pursuit of QL.
   3. Provide an assessment plan. During the third year post approval, an assessment (see below) of the course must be submitted to the department to determine if the course is meeting its stated QL learning outcomes. The results of all three tiers of this plan as outlined below will be included, as well as any changes planned for the course based on the assessment. This report will be included in the department's next Program Review. CELTUA will provide feedback to the department on the quality of the assessment and the conclusions/recommendations drawn from it. The Three Tiered Model of Assessment that you are to follow includes:
      • Tier 1 - Faculty Perceptions
      • Tier 2 - Student Perceptions
      • Tier 3 - Student Learning Outcome Assessment
      Please address each tier in describing your assessment plan.

For those proposing revisions of existing courses:

1. All proposals for the revision or enhancement of an existing CAS course (whether seeking QL status or not) require approval from the CAS curriculum committee. So, first, complete their "significant change" form.
   
   Item 2 on this form requests SLOs. Be sure at least three of these SLOs involve QL and that at least one-third of your total SLOs are QL-related.
2. Attach to the "significant change" form a separate document with the following information:
   1. The QL SLOs on the first page are ordered from those requiring the least degree of cognitive complexity to those requiring the most. That is, the higher-numbered SLOs involve greater cognitive sophistication. Identify the highest-numbered SLO included in your course. Then, provide either a course assignment or a description of a course assignment that facilitates this QL SLO. Please limit this response to 2 pages.
   2. Provide an estimation of the percentage of the course that will be spent in the pursuit of QL.
   3. Provide an assessment plan. During the third year post approval, an assessment (see below) of the course must be submitted to the department to determine if the course is meeting its stated QL learning outcomes. The results of all three tiers of this plan as outlined below will be included, as well as any changes planned for the course based on the assessment. This report will be included in the department's next Program Review. CELTUA will provide feedback to the department on the quality of the assessment and the conclusions/recommendations drawn from it. The Three Tiered Model of Assessment that you are to follow includes:
      • Tier 1 - Faculty Perceptions
      • Tier 2 - Student Perceptions
      • Tier 3 - Student Learning Outcome Assessment
      Please address each tier in describing your assessment plan.

Sample Questions Requiring QL Skills to Answer

The stimulus package involves a huge monetary investment by the U.S. government. Can this be understood by an informed citizen? In a related question, how is this information effectively communicated?

What is the basis of claims that Social Security will become insolvent in a particular number of years? Does this involve a projection of future population growth? What is the basis of these projections?

Different energy producing technologies are available (e.g., coal-burning, nuclear, solar). What climate, economic or health outcomes do each offer? Can the lifecycle cost of producing energy via these technologies be summarized and used to select a particular technology?

Two reports are issued summarizing the same political rally. One report says more than one million people participated while the other claimed fewer than 250,000. Which, if either, is correctly capturing the number of participants?

Global warming is accepted by the vast majority of environmental scientists. What are the models that underlie this belief? Why do we use models? Could these models be wrong? What is the uncertainty intrinsic in these models?

A newspaper article has reported that caffeine is bad for your health. An experiment was reported in which heavy coffee drinkers have higher rates of anxiety. Do you need additional information before you would believe this claim?

Millions, billions and trillions are all big numbers but they correspond to very different amounts of debt at a national scale. Parts per million (ppm), billion (ppb), trillion (ppt) are all small concentrations; however if chemical A kills 50% of organisms exposed to it at a concentration of 10 ppm and chemical B kills 50% of organisms exposed to it at a concentration of 15 ppb, then which chemical is more toxic? [Chemical B is relatively more toxic since it has the same effect at a much lower concentration. This requires an understanding that 15 ppb < 10 ppm (10 ppm = 10000 ppb).]

Is it worth stretching now to buy a house with a 15-year loan instead of a 30-year loan? Is it worth spending $15K more for an electric car relative to a gasoline car? [You need to be able to calculate the expected cost of operation over the duration over which you own the cars.]

Your doctor says you have a 10% risk of heart disease at your current cholesterol level. You can reduce this risk by lowering your cholesterol level through diet change, exercise or by taking a statin drug. Will diet and exercise changes suffice? How would you decide? What did 10% risk mean?

* Examples taken (and slightly modified) from Appendix L of the CAS QL Core Course Requirement Proposal

Effective date: applies to all applications with due dates on or after April 15, 2021.

For an at-a-glance summary, see the Appendix.

1. Introduction

   External research fellowships from entities such as the Guggenheim Foundation, Woodrow Wilson Center, National Endowment for the Humanities, Ford Foundation, and Fulbright Commission are valuable opportunities for faculty to advance their research agendas. These fellowships bring renown to the university and increase available research support for faculty. The CAS strongly encourages faculty with research expectations to apply for such grants and partners with them as described below. These guidelines have been designed, in consultation with department chairs, to support researchers equitably, transparently and sustainably. Faculty are asked to remember that the university is a contributing partner in this enterprise and needs to be involved in the planning early.
   
   Note that these guidelines are not binding commitments and may have to be changed or suspended in the event of serious financial constraints on the College.
   
   Faculty wishing to accept any fellowship, grant or similar opportunity that is excluded from internal support by these rules, may request to take a personal leave without pay. Benefits coverage during an unpaid personal leave will be negotiated and may be limited to one year in any four.
   
   

2. Qualifying Fellowships

   To qualify for salary support under these guidelines, fellowships must meet all of the following criteria:
   • Grant does not cover any overhead expense for the university (indirect cost recovery) – grants generating IDC recovery will be treated differently.
   • Grant requires absence from classroom teaching for fall and/or spring semester.
   • Grant must be paid directly to ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. (Exceptions possible when the granting agency prohibits this.)
   • Grant provides at least 30% of the faculty member’s base salary, or $25,000 per year toward salary, whichever is higher.
   • Grant allows the faculty member to devote full time to research, with no more than a nominal amount of teaching required at the host institution. No support is provided for arrangements that require substantial teaching at another institution, including teaching Fulbrights. The purpose of the College’s support of external fellowships is to support faculty research.
     
     

3. Amount and Frequency of Support

   CAS will ordinarily top-up the fellowship award to reach up to 100% of their base salary for the period of the fellowship, with the following limitations.
   • The maximum top-up amount available to an individual will be $50,000 per year (or $25,000 per semester) or 50% of base salary for the fellowship period, whichever is less.
   • Benefits will ordinarily be continued at university expense for up to one year of the fellowship period.
   • Ordinarily, no more than one year (two semesters) of any type of ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú-supported research leave may be taken within any consecutive 4 years. This includes ARA, FIL, and top-up of external fellowships.
   • Priority may be given to those who have been waiting longer for such support.
     
     

4. Replacement for Faculty on Leave

   Just as with an ARA or FIL, provision of replacement visiting faculty will be negotiated among the Department Chair, the Dean, and the Provost, and will depend on the overall need for courses in the department based on student demand, in the context of available resources.

5. Application Process

   Requests for CAS support for an externally supported leave are due to CAS by about November 1 of the academic year prior to the year in which the fellowship will be held, so that CAS can plan how much support to set aside. The precise date will be set and announced each year. Departments may have earlier deadlines. Additionally, for fellowships with deadlines prior to that date, applicants must get approval prior to the application being submitted.
   Here are the steps to follow.
   1. Discuss with your chair and confirm appropriateness of grant and timing. (by early October)
   2. By November 1, contact the dean's office to confirm available support for cost-sharing. Be prepared to indicate project title, sponsor(s), project dates, and amount of funding sought from sponsor and from CAS. You do not need a full application ready or a Cayuse number at this point.
   3. Apply for an ARA or FIL via your department, at the usual deadline in the fall. Indicate if the ARA or FIL is to be taken only in case of winning the fellowship.
      1. Departments need not rank such leave applications if the person should not be considered for a standalone ARA or FIL. Instead the ARA/FIL application should be forwarded with an indication of chair's support or not.
   4. Before the fellowship sponsor's application deadline, input the application information in the Cayuse (eSPA) system, indicating the divisional support promised. Cayuse is available via the website of the Office for Research and Innovation (ORI). Staff there can assist.
   5. Apply to the sponsor, through ORI if the sponsor allows.
   6. Inform your chair and the dean's office as soon as you have news of the outcome, whether funded or rejected.
   7. If funded, work with chair, dean, and ORI to route funds through ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú or provide documentation of payment.

Appendix: CAS Fellowship Support - At-A-Glance

Summary – does not replace full guidelines

Fellowships Covered:

1. Do not generate any overhead expense for the University
2. Require absence from ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú classroom teaching for fall and/or spring
3. Must be competitive and cover at least 30% of the faculty member's base salary
4. Must include at least $25,000 in salary support
5. Supports faculty research and does not require teaching at another institution

ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Notification:

Before November 1 of the year prior to the academic year of the fellowship:

1. Discuss with your chair and confirm appropriateness of grant and timing
2. Contact Dean's Office to confirm available support for cost-sharing
3. Apply for an ARA/FIL from the CAS, indicating dependence on Fellowship
   
   Prior to the fellowship sponsor's application deadline:
4. Enter application in Cayuse (eSPA) system, indicating divisional support

How CAS will Top-Up the Salary when you receive the fellowship:

1. CAS will top-up salary to reach up to 100%. Maximum Amount of CAS Contribution: $50,000 per year ($25,000 per semester) or 50% of base salary, whichever is less.
2. Benefits will ordinarily be continued at CAS expense.

Limits on Frequency of Leaves:

1. No more than one year (or two semesters) of any type of ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú-supported research leave (ARA, FIL, fellowship) may be taken within any consecutive four (4) years.
2. If funds are short, preference will be given to those who have been waiting longer.

Faculty wishing to accept any fellowship, grant or similar opportunity that is excluded from internal support by these rules, may request to take a personal leave without pay. Benefits during an unpaid personal leave will be negotiated and may be limited to one year in any four.

Background

CAS has long been the University leader in receiving external grants at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. As we hope to continue that tradition and even increase our external grant footprint this seemed like a good time to make sure we have a clear policy about grant course buy-outs. There have been differences between departments and across divisions on the funds required for a course buy-out. We have developed this CAS policy memo in response to questions that we have received from CAS faculty and chairs.

Proposal

The CAS philosophy is that a faculty member receiving an external grant that requires a reduction from the expected department teaching load should receive funding from the granting agency to compensate the University. We have now established a buy-out of 10% of the faculty member's academic salary as the normal amount required for a one course release. We assume that a faculty member, even with substantial buy-out, will teach at least one course per semester, unless they receive permission from the Dean. We do recognize that in some instances a smaller grant may not support this amount and in special circumstances the Dean will approve a chair request for a reduced amount for course release. We also recognize that in some disciplines the grant funds are expected to be used for non-faculty salary items, such as equipment, graduate students or lab support. We also recognize that some granting agencies do not support personnel costs or limit personnel costs. These grants will of course continue to be supported by CAS, but we are asking that these grant applications provide the Dean's office, before submission, with the amount of faculty release time and essentially how much unfunded course buy-out is being requested by the department for the proposed grant.

CAS will continue to support grants through the matching of graduate assistantships, start-up packages, equipment and special requests for other types of support. CAS will also continue to support fellowships and other types of awards that require cost sharing or CAS matching resources. Our commitment to supporting external applications for funding has never been stronger and we hope that the clarification of policies will serve to strengthen the grants process.

Approved by CAS Council of Chairs April, 2017

The Madalene and George Shetler Diabetes Research Award, awarded bi-annually, is available to faculty members within the College of Arts and Science who are conducting scientific or scholarly research pertaining to diabetes or illnesses related to diabetes. The award for academic years 2021/22 and 2022/23 will be $4,000. The recipient of the Madalene and George Shetler Diabetes Research Award will be selected based upon formal review of submitted faculty proposals.

Application

Faculty interested in applying for this award must submit a research proposal (5 page maximum).

Format of Proposal

Proposals should be submitted electronically (pdf document) to Christy Perry-Owens (heinricc@miamioh.edu) in the College of Arts and Science. Proposals should include:

Specific Aims: State the hypothesis and describe the goals, expected outcomes, and impact of the proposed research, particularly as it pertains to diabetes or illnesses related to diabetes.

Background: A brief description of the current state of knowledge in the field and how the proposed work will advance that knowledge.

Proposed Studies: Briefly describe the proposed studies; relevant preliminary results may be included.

Budget and Justification for the proposed work must be included. If additional funds are required to accomplish the Specific Aims, specify the source(s) of funding.

Literature Cited: Not included in 5-page maximum.

Proposal Due Date: October 6, 2023

Notification of Award: October 20, 2023

Please note: A brief final report is due to the College of Arts and Science office by August 31, 2025.

Term - 4 years

• Peters, Ted – Chair (CAS)
• Bechtel, Gabriele (ENG) (2)
• England, Marcia (GEO) (1)
• Erb, Meredith (CHM) (4)
• Hahn, Chip (SPA) (2)
• Keeler, Dennis (MTH) (1)
• Sampson, Joe (MJF) (2)

Term - 1 year

• Baernstein, P. Renée - Ex Officio
• Schneider, Monica (POL)

Term – 2 years

• Brehm, Susan - Ex Officio
• Former Chair-at-Large – Johnson, Joseph (PSY) (1)
• Hamlin, Kimberly (HST) (1)
• Edwards, Erin (ENG) (2)
• Luebbe, Aaron (PSY) (1)
• Wainscott, Ann (POL) (2)
• Crist, Thomas (BIO) (2)
• Fisher, Thomas (STA) (1)

Term - 2 years

• Baernstein, P. Renée - Ex Officio
• Polhaus, Gail (PHL) (2)
• Nesbit, TaraShea (ENG) (1)
• Yezierski, Ellen (CHM) (1)
• Haifei Shi (BIO) (2)
• Arbuckle, Matthew (POL) (2)
• Hunger, Jeffrey (PSY) (1)

Term – 2 years

• Associate Dean– Ex Officio
• Godeanu-Kenworthy, Oana (GIC) (2)
• Murphy, Patrick (MJF)(2)
• Prytherch, David (GEO) (1)
• Erb, Meredith (CHM) (1)
• Spangler, Brooke (PSY) (1)
• de Biasio, Louis (MTH) (1)

Term - 3 years

• Blue, Jennifer - Ex Officio
• Card, Jeb (ATH) (1) - Chair
• O’Neil, Joe – (GRAMELAC) (2)
• Keiser, Jane (MTH) (2)
• Hahn, Chip (SPA) (1)
• Moore, Richard (BIO) (1)
• Peters, Ted (CAS) - Ex Officio
• Alonso, Facundo (PHL) (3)
• Fioretti, Daniele (FRI) W representative
• Stevens, Hank (BIO) QL representative

Blue, Jennifer - Ex Officio

• TBD – Director & Chair (BIO-H)
• Dumyahn, Sarah (IES)
• Knoll, Lesley (BIO)
• Russell, David (BIO)
• Schaeffer, Paul (BIO)
• Sullivan, Amy (BIO)

Term - 2 years

• Brehm, Susan - Ex Officio
• Radke, Anna (PSY) (2)
• Tatjana Miljkovic (STA) (1)
• Vivoda, Jonathan (SOC/GTY) (1)
• Sipola, Maija (GLG) (2)
• Reiff, Ayako (GRAMELAC) (2)
• Bromley, James (ENG) (1)

Term - 4 years

• Carlin, Joe (MBI) - Chair
• Abshire, Kelly (MBI) (3)
• Ballard, Kevin (KNH) (3)
• Blitz, Dawn (BIO) (3)
• Bulanda, Jennifer (SOC/GTY) (2)
• Davie, Emily (KNH) (3)
• Erb, Meredith (CHM) (3)
• Fabby, Carol (PHY) (1)
• Ghimire, Saruna (2)
• Hay-Rollins, Cameron (ATH) (4)
• Hoffman, Susan (BIO) (4)
• James, Paul (BIO) (1)
• Killian, Kathleen (BIO) (3)
• Kirkmeyer, Brian (CEC) (4)
• Klestinec, Cindy (ENG) (4)
• Massie, Pascal (PHL) (4)
• McKee, Heidi (ENG) (4)
• Radke, Anna (PSY) (3)
• Robinson, Mike (BIO) (2)
• Russell, Jill (BIO) (1)
• Smith, Dean (KNH) (3)
• Strautman, Alan (MBI) (3)
• Tai, Heeyoung (CHM) (2)
• Vishwanath, Karthik (PHY) (3)
• Zhou, Shijie (CPB) (3)
• Schumacher, Jennifer (BSC) (3)

Term - 2 years

• Baernstein, P. Renée - Ex Officio
• Kiel Elizabeth (PSY) (2)
• Dabney-Smith, Carole (CHM) (2)
• Lippmann, Stephen (SOC/GTY) (1)
• Sutcliffe, Benjamin (GRAMELAC) (1)
• Tassoni, John (ENG) (2)
• Fisher, Thomas (STA) (2)

Middle East, Jewish, and Islamic Studies

• Gordon, Matthew - Chair (HST)
• Berdieva, Dilchoda (GIC)
• Dannies, Kate (GIC)
• French, Nathan (REL)
• Gray, Hillel (REL)
• Jeep, John (GRAMELAC)
• Peterson, Mark (ATH)
• Prior, Daniel (HST)
• Schaefer, John (ATH-M)
• Shaiman, Amy (HR)
• Wainscott, Ann (POL)